Liquidity Services Inc

Review: I ordered a keypad deadbolt, but was shipped a keypad door handle. What was delivered to me was not what was advertised on their website, and is a much cheaper product.

This is what I ordered: [redacted] The

product title is "Kwikset 910 TRL ZW 11P SMT CP Smss Z-Wave DeadBolt" and the Kwickset product page is [redacted] This is what they shipped me, and it is not even wireless Z-Wave capable: [redacted]

I was able to return the door handle, and they shipped me the exact - wrong - same thing, another door handle. Their site clearly shows the item is in stock (at the time I'm writing this), and it even has the correct Kwikset part number and photo in the listing.Desired Settlement: Send me what I have ordered, and what you advertised on your site. Which is: Kwikset 910 TRL ZW 11P SMT CP SmartCode Wireless Z-Wave DeadBolt [redacted]

Business

Response:

See Attachment

Beware! It's the wild, wild west on this! I made a rather large purchase of items that were described as "shelf pulls." By liquidation.com's definition (and everyone else's definition), shelf pulls are typically returned merchandise, or unsold overstock merchandise, with tags. The items I received were USED, no tags. Many had stains, rips, tear, and were clearly used. I filed a dispute, Liquidity Services offered to do nothing. They won't even abide by their own product definitions. There are other, better sites to buy from! Be careful! The product descriptions are short, vague, and the company does not police what is sold.

Review: On 6/21/2014 I won an auction on Liquidity Services Inc.'s website (Liquidation.com) hosted by SurplusXchange. I received the merchandise on Friday 6/27/2014 at approximately 10:30 am. I began inventorying the goods and noticed a few minor discrepancies, i.e. pieces that were totally different than the ones pictured in the auction but were at, or just a little below the retail prices noted in the manifest, so I simply chose to ignore it. Then I spotted the [redacted] watch (the flagship of the auction) and I immediately noticed that it was a lot different and cheaper looking than the one pictured in the auction. This watch was to be the centerpiece of the jewelry section in my new store. Other than sharing the same name brand, the similarities end there. Here are the major differences that can be obviously seen in the photos I submitted. The watch they sent me has a small single ring of 36 [redacted] crystals on the dial, compared to the much larger double ring of 156 [redacted] crystals that are embedded in the bezel of the watch pictured in the auction. The watch they sent me doesn't have any sub-dials compared to the 3 sub-dials ornamented with 54 more [redacted] crystals in the pictured watch. The watch they sent me has simple numbers on the dial compared to the more eye appealing Roman numerals displayed in the pictured watch. After further investigating I found out that the watch they sent me has a retail value of just $175 compared to $225 listed in the manifest, which is significant when you are talking about a $400 investment (the price of the winning bid), but it is not just the $50 difference in retail value, as anyone can see (especially a potential buyer), the watch pictured in the auction has so much more overall appeal than the one they sent me. I know I would have NOT bid on this auction if they had the watch they sent me pictured, instead of the much more nicer one. On Monday 6/29/2014 I submitted a dispute with Liquidity Services Inc. but they chose to deny my dispute saying that the two item were similar. That is like saying a Corvette and a Geo Metro are similar just because they both say Chevrolet on the fender. I think that this is a classic case of "Bait and switch". It was really disheartening when the best piece in the auction was so blatantly misrepresented and I have to spend time disputing this. I was really hoping that Liquidity Services Inc. and SurplusXchange would just do the right thing in this matter. Thank you for you valuable time. Sincerely, [redacted]...[redacted]Desired Settlement: Just give me the watch pictured and I'll give them the misrepresented one back.

Business

Response:

[redacted]

Revdex.com

1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor

Washington, DC 20005-3404

RE: [redacted], ID# [redacted]

Dear [redacted],

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by [redacted] with the Revdex.com. [redacted] described concerns she had as a buyer on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services, Inc. were in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID [redacted]. [redacted] believes that our company is in breach of this contract because her dispute was denied.

[redacted] was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of 131 items of major department store jewelry and watches in Shelf Pulls condition purchased via Liquidation.com. On June 30, she filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department stating that the shipment she received was grossly misrepresented by the seller in the auction listing. [redacted] said that several of the items were similar to the auction listing, but of slightly lesser retail value. However, her focus was on the [redacted] watch, which she said looked different than the one represented in the auction. She provided photos in support of her dispute and requested an exchange of the misrepresented watch.

Our disputes team reviewed [redacted]’s claim and concluded that it could not be honored because the auction listing was accurate. The items shipped to [redacted] were in Shelf Pulls condition, and her support confirmed that the buyer received items similar to what were pictured in the auction. Additionally, the disputes team advised [redacted] that MSRP prices are not encouraged as a basis of dispute, as these values are the suggested retail values of a new unit given by the manufacturer, whereby resale values will vary based on several factors throughout the retail process. Therefore, the items received by [redacted] do properly represent the items listed in the auction.

We regret that [redacted] was dissatisfied with the auction services provided by Liquidation.com; however, we feel that this matter was handled in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of the Liquidation.com marketplace.

Regards,

Cary *. H[redacted]

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

Consumer

Response:

[redacted], The Liquidity Services inc.'s legal and disputes teams appear to want to divert the issues of this dispute towards retail values and shelf pulls, but as I stated in my initial complaint, it is not just about the differences of the retail values, and the fact that the items were shelf pulls was never even an issue. The only issue here is the uncomplicated fact that SurplusXchange DISPLAYED A PICTURE OF A REALLY NICE WATCH IN THE AUCTION, AND THEN SENT ME A MUCH MORE INFERIOR ONE. It is just that simple, and no, they are not similar, anyone viewing them with an impartial eye can see that. I'm not unreasonable. I was willing to overlook the other items they switched, but I just can't believe they would try and switch the most featured piece in the auction. And if somehow Liquidity Services' Terms and Conditions allow these unethical practices, then that is just plain wrong and it should be amended immediately. Again, in case they missed this part too, other than the fact that the watch pictured in the auction has so much more appeal than the one I received, the differences are.... The watch I received has a small single ring of 36 [redacted] crystals on the dial, compared to the much larger double ring of 156 [redacted] crystals that are embedded in the bezel of the watch displayed in the auction. The watch I received doesn't have any sub-dials, compared to the 3 sub-dials ornamented with 54 more [redacted] crystals in the watch displayed in the auction. The watch I received has basic simple numbers on the dial, compared to the much more eye appealing Roman numerals displayed in the watch shown in the auction. As I stated before, I would have NEVER bid on this auction if they had displayed the watch that I received. I'm not a trouble maker, and I detest the fact that I have to spend what little spare time I have to dispute this, but I will make time, because I don't think anyone should be treated in this manner. It appears as if they think because they are a large corporation with a legal and a so called disputes team, they can bully the small business guy/gal, do anything they want, and get away with it. But I'm confident that just about anyone that's not on their payroll will see my point. It's simply just not right. Thank you for your valuable time, [redacted]

Business

Response:

August 21, 2014

Revdex.com

1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor

Washington, DC 20005-3404

RE: [redacted], ID# [redacted]

Dear [redacted],

Liquidation.com is in receipt of the response submitted by [redacted]. In her response, [redacted] states that she is dissatisfied with the reply provided by our company to her initial complaint.

[redacted] filed a claim regarding general merchandise purchased via Liquidation.com that she believed had been grossly misrepresented in the auction listing. Our disputes team requested support (photos, videos, etc.) for her dispute and after reviewing the support, we concluded that [redacted]’s claim could not be honored because the auction listing was accurate. [redacted]’s support confirmed that the shipment she received was in the correct condition of Shelf Pulls and that the items she received were similar to those pictured in the auction. In her initial complaint, [redacted] also noted that the watch she received and the one pictured in the auction were different and differed in MSRP by $50, which was a large part of her $400 investment. Those MSRP values, however, did not dictate the prices of the items within this auction. The “per unit price” of this auction was $3.07, accounting for the $402.00 winning bid. Under our terms and conditions, we do allow a quantity variance on our Liquidation.com auctions.

Quantity variance is the percentage of items that are deemed to be either in excess of or less than the amount listed on the auction; ranging from 1-10% per auction. The quantity variance is calculated on a per unit price, and pertains to all merchandise within an auction, including missing or damaged items. However, asset condition of the merchandise within this variance may differ from the rest of the auction items.

With the above calculation, the quantity variance was less than 1%, whereas 3% was allowed by the auction. This was visible on the auction page. As per the terms and conditions of Liquidation.com, this variance was permitted. For this reason, we cannot accept [redacted]’s secondary complaint, which argued on behalf of the MRSP and value of this watch. Lots are sold in their entirety with consideration for quantity variance so a buyer should not bid for the purpose of receiving an individual item. If the item had not been shipped at all (a “missing” item) it would have been covered under quantity variance. Likewise, the lesser item is acceptable so long as the lot meets the advertised requirements for 97% of the merchandise.

We regret that [redacted] remains unsatisfied with our response; however, we stand by our decision to deny the dispute because the auction was properly listed.

Regards,

Cary *. H[redacted]

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

Consumer

Response:

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

Review: [redacted]

I am rejecting this response because, they keep attempting to cover up the fact that they featured one watch and sent me an inferior one. Their desperation is getting very obvious. They know that their actions are simply unethical.

Regards,

Review: Liquidation.com refuses to take action on seller who refuses to ship items won on auction or to provide information regarding the history of seller's nonperformance in the past. The same seller places the same auctions every month even though they do not ship the product.Desired Settlement: Provide contact information for the seller's agent and history of past nonperformance of the same.

Business

Response:

See Attachment

Review: I purchased a lot of 72 sports bras. They were advertised as brand new with tags. When they arrived and I took them out of their packages I smelled a strong odor - a musty, chemical smell. I also noted mold on several of the bras. I cannot re-sell these bras and want a full refund.Desired Settlement: I want a full refund and will return the products. Liquidation.com should send me a pre-paid label so that I may return the products.

Business

Response:

June 25, 2014

Revdex.com

1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor

Khosravan, DC 20005-3404

RE: **. [redacted], ID# [redacted]

Dear **. [redacted],

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by **. [redacted] with the Revdex.com. **. [redacted] described concerns she had as a buyer on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services, Inc. were in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID [redacted]. **. [redacted] believed that our company was in breach of this contract because she received merchandise that could not be sold; however, it has since been resolved in her favor.

**. [redacted] was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of 72 ladies sports bras purchased via Liquidation.com. On May 5, she filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that her shipment was not in the condition advertised in the auction listing. **. [redacted] said that the new bras that she received had a strong chemical smell and that many had mold on them. Therefore, these items could not be sold as new merchandise. She provided photos and requested a full refund. Also, she sent a few bras as samples for review in cooperation with our customer service disputes request.

Our disputes team reviewed **. [redacted]’s claim and concluded that it would be honored with a full refund upon return of the merchandise to the seller. A full refund of $153.13 was initiated to the **. [redacted]’s account on June 9; however, she had filed a chargeback during the disputes process. Chargebacks are specifically prohibited in our User Agreement because the buyer maintains possession of merchandise without paying for it. For this reason, **. [redacted]’s Liquidation.com user account was de-activated.

We feel that this matter was handled in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of the Liquidation.com marketplace and consider the matter closed with the refund payment.

Regards,

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

Review: I began doing business with Liquidity Services, Inc. (aka Liquidation.com) on October 4, 2013. When I won my first bid with them and noticed that they had added taxes to the invoice, which only showed up when I changed from having them arrange the shipping from New Jersey to arranging my own shipping. I called and spoke with [redacted] who informed me that I would need to complete a Tax Certificate and fax it to them to receive a credit for the taxes as a reseller. On October 8, 2013, I completed the Tax Certificated and faxed it over to Liquidity and called and spoke with **. [redacted] who confirmed receipt of the form and stated that a refund of taxes would be honored and that I should receive a credit within a few days. I called almost every day following those few days and have been told a number of different stories, depending on who is on the Customer Service desk and answers the phone when I call. The stories have ranged from we can't find a Certificate for you to we found it and sent it to the appropriate department, but it hasn't been processed and back and forth with the same stories over and over. I won my 2nd bit on October 14, 2013 and when I went to pay the invoice, I noticed that taxes were added to that invoice as well. I called them and the stories have started all over again. I then started having proble** with getting my merchandise shipped and getting the correct measurement and weight of my shipment so that I could provide that to my shipping carrier to have it picked up. My order consisted of 3 laptops and initially they were sending them in 3 separate boxes and the weight was 56 pounds. I couldn't understand why the laptops were being individually shipped since they were all a part of the same lot and on my 1st order of 2 laptops, which were all in one lot were shipped in one box. I spoke with **,. [redacted] and he advised me that he would put in a request to have them packaged in one box. That request didn't get in and took me calling back several times over severa days before it was completed. They then informed me that rather than the shipment being in 3 separate boxes, 2 laptops were in 1 box and 1 laptop was in another box and the shipment consisted of a total of 2 boxes. They told me the weight now was 70 pounds. The packages were consolidated now, but the weight went up 14 pounds. I called and called and requested clarification and they said they would have their Indiana warehouse look into it. They then came back and said the 2 packages weighed 21 pounds a piece. Well I knew that couldn't be true because 2 laptops were in 1 box and 1 laptop was in 1 box. I complained to no avail. When I picked up the shipment from [redacted], I had them measure and weigh the packages. One box with 1 laptop measured 18 x 16 x 6 and weighed 10 pounds. The other box with 2 laptops measured 18 x 18 x 16 and weighed 19 pounds. Both boxes totaled 29 pounds in weight. Meanwhile, I called a number I found on the internet for the company CEO, [redacted], and left a message. On October 16th at 3:04 pm, I received a call from **. [redacted] infor**ng me that she was following up on a call that I made to **. [redacted]. I explained all the problems and she apologized for all the issues I had been having and advised me that she was going to do an audit on my account and send me an email to follow up on our conversation and include her contact information within 48 hours. I never received a follow up email concerning the audit of my account from **. [redacted]. In calling back after October 16th and in speaking with **. [redacted], I found that **. [redacted] is the Supervisor of Customer Service. I have called several times since speaking with **. [redacted] and left messages with **. [redacted] and others in Customer Service for **. [redacted], but never received a call back. I am on the phone calling Liquidity almost daily about the tax refunds on my account and they have done little to nothing to resolve my tax refund issues. It seems as though, while Liquidity allows the customer to arrange their own shipping on certain orders, the customer is penalized by having taxes added to their bill and given in accurate information to make the process of arranging their own shipping difficult and almost impossible. Since I started doing business with Liquidity, I have received the absolute worst customer service that I have received in a long time from any company that I have done business with.Desired Settlement: I would like Liquidity to refund me $48.09 (Transaction #[redacted]) and $29.30 (Transaction #[redacted]) for a total refund amount of $77.39. Also, I would like them to correct my account so that if I make any future transactions, that taxes don't get added to my invoice at all.

Business

Response:

March 26, 2014

**. [redacted]

Revdex.com

1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor

Washington, DC 20005-3404

RE: **. [redacted], ID# [redacted]

Dear **. [redacted],

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by **. [redacted] with the Revdex.com. **. [redacted] described concerns she had as a buyer on our website, stating that Liquidity Services, Inc. was in violation of buyer’s purchase agreements for transaction IDs [redacted] and [redacted]. **. [redacted] believes that our company is in breach of these contracts because she disagrees with the application of our company policies.

**. [redacted] was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of two refurbished [redacted] laptops on October 4, 2013, and a lot of three refurbished [redacted] Aspire notebooks on October 14, both purchased via Liquidation.com. She said that when she noticed that sales tax had been charged to her that she contacted our customer service department to receive a refund as she is an exempt reseller. **. [redacted] was instructed to complete and submit a resale certificate so that she would have the proper tax designation. She said that she submitted the form initially on October 8 and then noticed that taxes had again been charged a few days later on her second transaction. When she followed up with customer service regarding the error, she could not get a satisfactory response. She requests a full refund of her sales taxes from the two transactions and that her account receives the proper designation to avoid future problems with sales tax payments.

After some miscommunications, the resale certificate was posted to the account and applied on November 19, 2013. Sales taxes were not taken from **. [redacted]’ two subsequent transactions and will not be taken from her transactions going forward. The resale certificates arrive for review by our finance department and they had been initially rejected and deleted before the issue was corrected. The customer service team would not have seen the resale certificate posted to the account because it had been deleted by the finance team for inaccuracy by the time **. [redacted] contacted customer service. We apologize for the confusion regarding the status of the certificate.

Additionally, we will refund the $77.39 requested to **. [redacted]’ account. Her account now has the resale certificate applied and will not be charged sales tax on future transactions.

We apologize for any inconvenience experienced by **. [redacted] and will consider the matter closed with the refund payment.

Regards,

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

Consumer

Response:

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

Review: [redacted]

I am rejecting this response because:

Regards,

I can no longer accept a refund of these taxes. I filed my complaint almost 5 months ago and they are just responding. My taxes were filed in February and those taxes paid were claimed on my return. Liquidation has credited my bank account for these fees on March 27th in 2 separate transactions ($29.30 and $48.09). They will need to go back and reverse those transactions because I can't lawfully accept them because they have already been claimed on my tax return. At this point, the transaction will have to remain as it was initially done because it is too late to correct it by issuing a credit. I was out of the country on March 27th and only returned close to midnight on March 29th, which is why I am just now responding.

Review: I bought 1824 ammo cans for $8,939.70 from gl description says may be missing some lids.Some lids turned out to be short 914 these cans are useless without the lidsDesired Settlement: I would like the missing 914 lids or close to it if I was a 100 short I would have ate it 914 is not acceptable or let me bring the 914 cans back and be given a credit of 4478.60 at 4.90 per can this same type thing happened on sale [redacted] we were 735 ammo cans short after 84 days gl gave us a credit of 2700.00 also I might add nothing happened on sale [redacted] until we contacted the Revdex.com THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME

Business

Response:

December 13, 2013

Revdex.com

1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor

Washington, DC 20005-3404

RE: [redacted], ID# [redacted]

Dear [redacted],

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by [redacted] with the Revdex.com. **. [redacted] described concerns he had as a buyer from our subsidiary Government Liquidation regarding the company’s policies and customer service.

All potential buyers are informed of the auction procedures and agree to the Terms and Conditions at the time of registration as well as upon placement of their bids. Our records indicated that **. [redacted] agreed to the Terms and Conditions at the time of registration. Agreement of the Terms and Conditions also occurred when he placed his winning bid on sale [redacted], lot [redacted] (Fri Oct 4 17:13:58 2013) on Government Liquidation’s website.

Government Liquidation performs a service contract for the Department of Defense (DLA Disposition Services). Our shared objectives are to keep surplus and idle inventories moving out of military installations and to provide the maximum return to the US Treasury.

On October 07, 2013, **. [redacted] was issued an invoice for his winning bid on sale [redacted], lot [redacted]. Subsequently, the site records indicate **. [redacted] personally signed for and removed the property from the site. In accordance with Section 8:H and 8:I of the Terms and Conditions, purchasers are required to sign for all material prior to removing property, and if the property is not acceptable for any reason, do not remove it. Section 8:H and 8:I of the Terms and Conditions are posted below for your reference and understanding.

8:H Either you or your agent will be required to sign for all material in the presence of a GL representative (unless other[redacted] approved by an authorized GL agent) prior to removing property.

8:I You or your agents are responsible for property count and verification of lots purchased at the time of removal. If the property is not acceptable for any reason, do not remove it.

In addition, as indicated in the lot description, some lids may be missing from the lot. The lot description is posted below for your reference and understanding.

M2A1 .50 Caliber ammunition cans with lids removed, Approx. 1,824 ammunition cans, Size 12"x6"x7", Cans are on 19 pallets, Some dents, rust or bent cans, May be missing some lids, Pallets may require re-stacking, re-banded or re-shrink wrapped prior to shipping, Recommend buyer screen item (s) prior to placing bid, GL will Provide Tail Gate Loading or Buyer may remove individually.

Based upon the information mentioned above, Government Liquidation is unable to honor **. [redacted]’s request for a refund and/or additional property.

We encourage **. [redacted] to contact our Customer Service Department (###-###-#### – Ask for [redacted]), prior to future auction participation, to address any questions.

We regret that **. [redacted] was dissatisfied with the auction services provided by GovLiquidation.com; however, we stand by our decision.

Regards,

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

Review: I did not receive the items stated in my payment summary. I was supposed to receive 4 7" Capacitative tablets and I only received one with a case. The original manifest while the auction was going on was changed after payment. The transaction id was [redacted] and the auction id was [redacted].Desired Settlement: I would like a refund since I did not receive the product I bidder on.

Business

Response:

See Attachment

Review: We recently made a purchase of warehouse shelving from their liquidation.com auction. Auction #[redacted],Transaction ID [redacted] for $815.00 auction amount, 65.20 Buyer's premium, and $ 1426.13 shipping for a total of: $2306.33.

The pictures for the auction give a reasonable assumption that all the parts go together to make a shelve. In fact that is not what we receieved. The uprights and support beams are for differerent types of shelves and cannot be used together.

We believe this to be a gross misrepresentation of the goods that we received.Desired Settlement: We would like a full refund of the entire amount of $2,306.33 and to have the parts removed at their expense.

Business

Response:

See Attachment

Review: We purchased a [redacted] through [redacted] and Liquidity Services Inc. is the company that carries the warranty. We were told the warranty was through [redacted] on [redacted]'s website but the 1-877 number provided to us was to Liquidity Services. Our warranty is a 90 day warranty and we are within the 90 days. Upon contacting them they sent me an email with all the information they needed to process our claim. I responded with the required information within the day. I received an email from then explaining our [redacted] issue which is a display problem, is not covered under the warranty. I asked for a copy of the warranty. In reviewing the warranty I did not find anywhere that is stated display problems were not covered. The warranty states that "the product is to be free from defects in workmanship under normaluse during the limited warranty period of 90 days" The only exception was "the warranty does not extend to accessories or expendable parts'. I would considered a working display an essential part of a laptop computer. I responded to them and asked how this was not covered under their warranty. Their response was that "per policy and procedure, your unit is not covered by the warranty due to a display issue regarding damaged pixals" I asked for further written information on the policy and procedure. They responded that they already sent me a copy of the warranty and in bold letters. THIS CASE IS CLOSED. First, this is horrible customer service, second I think they do not want to fullfill their warranty agreement.Desired Settlement: I would like either a repair of my [redacted] or a refund of my money.

Business

Response:

May 24, 2013

Revdex.com

1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor

Washington, DC 20005-3404

RE: [redacted], ID# [redacted]

Dear [redacted],

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by [redacted] with the Revdex.com. [redacted] described concerns she had as a buyer using [redacted], with the warranty operated by Liquidity Services, Inc. [redacted] believes that our company is in breach of this contract because her warranty request was denied.

On December 27, 2013, [redacted] purchased a [redacted] through [redacted]. The laptop began to experience display issues so [redacted] contacted our company on March 10 to initiate a claim under the 90-day warranty. She provided photos of the unit in support of her claim.

Upon review of the photos, our team discovered that the screen was cracked. Unfortunately, the warranty does not cover problems related to physical damage to the laptop. If the damage was present upon arrival, then a shipping claim should have been filed through [redacted]. If the damage occurred later, then it would fall outside the responsibility of the warranty.

We regret that [redacted] is dissatisfied with her purchase; however, we feel that we have handled the matter in accordance with the warranty conditions.

Regards,

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.